linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu/performance: Fix kfree_perf_init() build warning on 32-bit kernels

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:06:06 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu/performance: Fix kfree_perf_init() build warning on
 32-bit kernels

On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 11:11:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:14:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:27:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > > BTW., could we please also rename this code from 'PERF_TEST'/'perf test'
> > > to 'PERFORMANCE_TEST'/'performance test'? At first glance I always
> > > mistakenly believe that it's somehow related to perf, while it isn't. =B-)
> > 
> > Would it be better to call it 'RCUPERF_TEST' instead of the
> > 'RCU_PERFORMANCE_TEST' you are proposing? I feel the word 'PERFORMANCE' is
> > too long.  Also, 'rcuperf test' instead of the 'rcu performance test' you are
> > proposing.  I am Ok with doing it however you and Paul want it though, let me
> > know.
> 
> As long as we are bikeshedding the name...  How about refscale.c and
> RCU_REF_SCALE_TEST on the one hand and rcuscale.c and RCU_SCALE_TEST on
> the other?  That keeps the names reasonably short and does not allude
> to perf at all.

Hearing no objections, I will go with the scale/SCALE names.

						Thanx, Paul